CC SR 20240319 03 - ParkMobile Park Place
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 03/19/2024
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to update the ParkMobile parking solution along
Crenshaw Boulevard.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Receive and file a status update on the implementation of the ParkMobile parking
solution along Crenshaw Boulevard;
(2) Approve modifications to the Residential Recreational Parking Program on Park
Place; and
(3) Authorize Staff to install a sign recognizing the land dedication to the City by the
National Park Service (NPS) at Del Cerro Park as required by the Program of
Utilization (POU) dated March 1, 1976.
FISCAL IMPACT: If the recommended Council action items are approved, the
estimated cost of $15,150 will be funded in the Fiscal Year 2023-24 adopted budget. VR
Amount Budgeted: $690,000 (Public Works)
$33,000 (Recreation and Parks)
Additional Appropriation: None
Account Number(s): 101-400-3151-5201 $15,000 (General Fund – Public Works – Repairs/Maint.)
101-400-5122-4310 $150
(General Fund – Recreation & Parks – Supplies)
ORIGINATED BY: Katie Lozano, Senior Administrative Analyst, Recreation and Parks
Department
Dan Trautner, Deputy Director, Recreation and Parks Department
REVIEWED BY: Cory Linder, Director, Recreation and Parks Department
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Del Cerro Park Program of Utilization (page A-1)
B. April 18, 2023 staff report (page B-1)
1
BACKGROUND:
The City implemented a Residential Recreational Parking Program on Park Place in early
2019 and the ParkMobile parking solution on Crenshaw Boulevard, south of Crest Road,
in July 2021, both to mitigate the significant increase in public use of the Portuguese Bend
and Filiorum Reserves and the common parking areas along Crenshaw Boulevard and
Park Place. Since trail counters were installed in 2019, typical annual visitation of these
trails averaged 250,000 visitors before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, doubled
during the pandemic into late 2020 and early 2021, and is currently back down to pre-
pandemic visitation levels. November 2023 through February 2024 saw an approximately
20% decrease in visitation, likely because 70% of the popular Portuguese Bend Reserve
trails have been closed since mid-October due to accelerated land movement-related
damage to trails.
On April 18, 2023, the City Council directed Staff to work with ParkMobile to come up with
a suggestion or plan that will increase utilization to 25% by using the current advance
reservation system. On December 19, 2023, the City Council approved Amendment No.
3 to the Professional Services Agreement with ParkMobile, extending the term until June
30, 2024. Since that time, the City was notified by the National Park Service (NPS)
regarding concerns about City non-compliance with the Program of Utilization (POU), a
document that established land use guidelines for the federal property that became Del
Cerro Park and the Civic Center when the land was given to the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes in 1976 via the Federal Lands to Parks Program . Specifically, the Residential
Recreational Parking Program on Park Place is out of compliance with the POU, and the
City failed to install POU-required signage at the park entrance recognizing the federal
government.
Tonight, the City Council will receive an update on the ParkMobile parking program and
corrective measures addressing the concerns raised by the NPS.
DISCUSSION:
1. ParkMobile Parking Solution Update
The City implemented the ParkMobile parking solution in July 2021 and saw an immediate
improvement to adverse neighborhood impacts and traffic conditions along Crenshaw
Boulevard and Park Place. However, the ParkMobile managed parking area has been
underutilized by the public. Since implementation, the City has taken several steps to
improve usage of ParkMobile managed parking spaces, including:
• Reducing the advanced reservation requirement from 24 hours to one hour
• Improving presence of and verbiage on signs
• Providing free parking time blocks on weekday mornings
• Public education campaigns
• Improving the intuitive usability of the ParkMobile app
• Surveying Preserve visitors on their experience with ParkMobile
2
In April 2023, the City Council received an update on ParkMobile, which included
information on system usage and outlined some potential management changes that
could increase usage of the 39 parking spaces. Survey results showed that the public
was most deterred from using ParkMobile by the $10.35 cost to park and the requirement
to make a reservation in advance of a visit. At the meeting, the City Council considered
the following Staff recommended changes to the ParkMobile System:
• Converting to an on-demand model (not requiring advanced reservations)
• Decreasing the parking fee
• Reducing the maximum blocks of time available for reservation
• Extending the current two-hour free weekday time block
However, concerned that these options may have a detrimental impact on the residential
neighborhoods adjacent to the Preserve and that the changes may too rapidly increase
use of the parking program, the City Council directed Staff to work directly with the
ParkMobile vendor to try to increase public parking within the ParkMobile managed
spaces, with an initial goal of reaching 25% usage.
Staff’s intent over the past eight months was to meet the 25% usage goal. During this
time, NPS staff notified Recreation and Parks Staff about the compliance issues with the
POU. Additionally, land movement within the Portuguese Bend and Filiorum Reserve s
increased significantly, resulting in large-scale trail closures, which has reduced
recreational opportunities and is likely the cause of decreased visitation to the area.
The table below shows usage statistics for April 2023 through February 2024. Usage
numbers showed a slight increase in April 2023 through September 2024. However,
visitation dropped substantially in October 2023 through February 2024, concurrent with
the landslide-related trail closures.
Month Reservations
Average
Reservations/Day
April 2023 Total Reservations 632 21.1
Paid Parking 581 19.4
Weekday Free Public Parking 51 1.7
May 2023 Total Reservations 455 14.7
Paid Parking 388 12.5
Weekday Free Public Parking 67 2.2
June 2023 Total Reservations 328 10.9
Paid Parking 269 9
Weekday Free Public Parking 59 2
July 2023 Total Reservations 380 12.3
Paid Parking 302 9.7
Weekday Free Public Parking 78 2.5
3
Month Reservations
Average
Reservations/Day
August 2023 Total Reservations 250 8.1
Paid Parking 172 5.6
Weekday Free Public Parking 78 2.5
September 2023 Total Reservations 254 8.5
Paid Parking 174 5.8
Weekday Free Public Parking 80 2.7
October 2023 Total Reservations 228 7.4
Paid Parking 155 5
Weekday Free Public Parking 73 2.4
November 2023 Total Reservations 174 5.8
Paid Parking 117 3.9
Weekday Free Public Parking 57 1.9
December 2023 Total Reservations 168 5.4
Paid Parking 117 3.8
Weekday Free Public Parking 51 1.6
January 2024 Total Reservations 217 7
Paid Parking 189 6.1
Weekday Free Public Parking 28 0.9
February 2024 Total Reservations 92 3.2
Paid Parking 78 2.7
Weekday Free Public Parking 14 0.5
Staff will continue to monitor visitation levels and ParkMobile usage to understand the
effects of the proposed modifications to ParkMobile Zones A and C discussed later in this
report, as well as monitoring impacts of trail closures on visitation to the area.
2. Parking on Park Place and Del Cerro Park Program of Utilization
Park Place is a small cul-de-sac off Crenshaw Boulevard at Del Cerro Park that provides
street access to three homes. There are currently 16 parking spaces consisting of 14
Residential Recreational Parking spaces and two Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
parking spaces for access to the Portuguese Bend and Filiorum Reserves, as well as Del
Cerro Park. The Residential Recreational Parking spaces are available for free to
residents of Rancho Palos Verdes who obtain a permit at City Hall. The City Council
established this Residential Recreational Parking area in 2019 because the Preserve’s
popularity had grown exponentially, resulting in adverse impacts to residences that pre-
dated the formation of the park and Preserve, and the City Council was looking for a way
to continue to provide residents access to the neighborhood park and popular trails.
The parking spaces on Park Place are regulated per NPS’s POU, which stipulates that
parking spaces within Del Cerro Park’s boundaries must provide park access to the
general public. In October 2023, NPS staff informed the City that a complaint from a
4
member of the public was received about the Residential Recreational Parking Program
not complying with the conditions of the POU.
In response, Staff held meetings with NPS staff and the surrounding homeowners
associations (HOAs) to address the non-compliance. As such, City Staff proposes the
following reconfiguration of the Preserve/park parking area to bring Park Place into
compliance with the POU, to continue to implement the Residential Recreational Parking
Program, and to minimize adverse traffic impacts to the general area:
• Return eight of the 14 non-ADA parking spaces on Park Place to general public
usage, managed through the ParkMobile parking solution. Parking rules for all
ParkMobile parking spaces include:
o One-hour advanced reservation required
o $10.35 charge for three-hour timeslot
o Free parking with reservation available Monday through Friday from 7-8:45
a.m.
• Keep two ADA parking spaces.
• Designate six of the 14 non-ADA Park Place parking spaces for Park Place HOA
visitor parking, City Staff, City contractors, and Palos Verdes Peninsula Land
Conservancy (PVPLC) volunteers.
• Convert 10 parking spaces within ParkMobile Zone C to Residential Recreational
Parking spaces, formerly on Park Place. Parking rules for the Residential
Recreational Parking spaces will remain the same:
o Residents may obtain a parking permit at City Hall
o Free parking, with displayed permit, is available during park/Preserve hours for
a maximum of three hours at a time.
Before proposed
modifications
(current configuration)
After proposed
modifications
5
Given the current use levels of the Residential Recreational Parking area, reducing the
number of resident only designated spaces from 14 to 10 is not anticipated to have a
significant impact on resident access. City Staff has met with NPS staff, Del Cerro HOA,
and Park Place HOA to gather feedback on this proposed plan. NPS staff has been helpful
and understands the access and parking challenges the City faces. NPS shared that the
proposed plan would be consistent with the POU. The Del Cerro HOA and Park Place
HOA are also supportive of this new parking configuration as a solution to bring the City
into compliance with the POU.
If the City Council approves this new parking configuration, Staff anticipates implementing
these changes by summer 2024. Implementation measures include changing and
updating signs, asphalt paintings, public education, and coordination with ParkMobile
staff.
3. POU Required Signage at Del Cerro Park
NPS staff also informed City Staff that the City is out of compliance with the POU in regard
to required signage at Del Cerro Park. The POU stipulates that the City must:
“erect and maintain a permanent sign or marker near the point of principal access
to the conveyed area indicating that the property is a park or recreation area and
has been acquired from the Federal Government for use by the general public.”
While the park currently has the Recreation and Parks Department’s standard park signs,
which include the name of the park and park rules, the sign does not indicate that the
park was acquired from the federal government for use by the general public. Staff
proposes to install a metal sign, consistent with the design of existing park signage, with
the language that the park was acquired from the federal government for use by the
general public.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
ParkMobile Professional Services Agreement
As noted earlier, on December 19, 2023, the City Council approved Amendment No. 3 to
the Professional Services Agreement with ParkMobile, extending the term until June 30,
2024. Staff intends to bring forward a new professional services agreement for the City
Council’s consideration before June 30, 2024.
Crenshaw Blvd. and Park Place Traffic Study
A traffic study has been planned for Crenshaw Boulevard (north and south of Crest Road)
and Park Place to understand usage patterns and maximize parking effectiveness and
public safety. It was determined that the parking study should take place once the ge neral
area has reached a level of equilibrium after the pandemic-related surge in public use,
6
and once the ParkMobile parking solution had been implemented for a significant period
of time and use of the area stabilized. At this time, because Preserve usage conditions
are not considered “normal” due to the significant number of trails close d as a result of
the increased land movement, the traffic study may be deferred beyond Fiscal Year 2024-
2025 and included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the City Council’s
consideration as a future project at the upcoming CIP Workshop.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends the Council receive and file this update on current ParkMobile usage
and make no additional changes to the ParkMobile system at this time. Staff also
recommends the Council take the following actions to bring the City into compliance with
the POU:
1. Move the Residential Recreational Parking Program from Park Place to
ParkMobile Zone C and return eight of the Park Place parking spaces to general
public parking managed through ParkMobile. Additionally, designate six of the
spaces for Park Place resident visitor parking and City Staff/contractor parking.
2. Install signs at Del Cerro Park recognizing that the parkland was acquired from the
federal government for public use.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative action s are available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Consider alternative locations for the Residential Recreation Parking Program .
2. Consider alternative sign size, design and location recognizing the acquisition of
Del Cerro Park.
3. Take other action, as deemed appropriate.
7
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-15
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-21
A-22
A-23
A-24
A-25
A-26
A-27
A-28
A-29
A-30
A-31
A-32
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 04/18/2023
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to receive a status report and consider operational
options for the ParkMobile parking system on Crenshaw Boulevard, south of Crest Road .
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Receive and file a 6-month status report on the operation of the ParkMobile parking
system including the ParkMobile Survey results.
(2) If desired, provide direction on one or a combination of the following potential
options to modify the ParkMobile parking system:
a. Convert the ParkMobile parking system to an on-demand model.
b. Retain reservation-based parking based on three-hour time blocks and modify
the rate to park.
c. Retain reservation-based parking and modify the duration of time blocks.
d. Extend the current two-hour free weekday block of time to a three-hour free
weekday block of time.
e. Make no changes to the ParkMobile parking system at this time.
(3) Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with
ParkMobile, extending the term by one year to December 31, 2023 and increasing
the contract sum by $8,808 for a not-to-exceed total contract sum of $39,988, for
an app-based parking service in the Del Cerro area on Crenshaw Boulevard, south
of Crest Road; and,
(4) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the amendment in a form approved
by the City Attorney.
FISCAL IMPACT: $4,404 is included in the FY 2022-23 budget. The remaining $4,404
will be included in the FY 2023-24 operating budget request for the City Council’s adoption
in June.
Amount Budgeted: $20,000
Additional Appropriation: None
Account Number(s): 101-400-5122-5101 (General Funds - Professional Technical Services)
ORIGINATED BY: Dan Trautner, Deputy Director of Recreation and Parks
Matt Waters, Senior Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Cory Linder, Director of Recreation and Parks
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
B-1
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with ParkMobile
(page A-1)
B. ParkMobile survey results (page B-1)
C. December 21, 2021 City Council Staff Report
D. August 16, 2022 City Council Staff Report
E. October 4, 2022 City Council Staff Report
F. September 26, 2022 letter from Del Cerro HOA (page F-1)
BACKGROUND:
In July 2021, the City implemented the ParkMobile parking system along Crenshaw
Boulevard, south of Crest Road, the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve’s most popular and
congested access point. The goal of the ParkMobile parking solution was to improve
negative traffic and access issues along Crenshaw B oulevard and to alleviate resulting
negative impacts to surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Since ParkMobile’s implementation, Staff has monitored and adjusted the parking system
to balance the needs of public access with controlling and improving parking, traffic, and
impacts to adjacent residential neighborhoods.
On December 21, 2021, the City Council approved the following changes to the
ParkMobile parking system (Attachment C):
1. Allow same-day reservations (cutoff one hour prior to reservation start)
2. Create simplified access to the ParkMobile reservation link
3. Improve instructional signs
4. Allow reservations in one-hour blocks at a prorated rate
5. Discontinue requiring reservations for Recreational Residential Parking Permit
holders
On August 16, 2022, the City Council received an update on the ParkMobile parking
system, including usage statistics, and directed Staff to explore modifications to the
system (Attachment D). The Council directive that evening included consideration to
remove the advanced reservation requirement by making ParkMobile an on -demand
parking system. The Council directive was based on a common complaint about the
system being difficult to use, likely because making an advanced reservation takes more
of a time investment, may be unknown to some visitors, and is an uncommon public
parking system model. The average occupancy rate between August 2021 and July 2022
was approximately 7%.
On October 4, 2022, the City Council received a further update on the ParkMobile system
that included the following suggested options to modify the system (Attachment E):
B-2
1. Convert the ParkMobile parking system to an on-demand model.
2. Retain reservation-based parking based on three-hour time blocks and make
modifications to the rate to park.
3. Retain reservation-based parking and make modifications to the duration of time
blocks.
4. Extend the current two-hour free weekday block of time to a three-hour free
weekday block of time.
5. Make no changes to the ParkMobile parking system at this time.
Prior to the October 4, 2022 meeting, Staff met twice with the Del Cerro Homeowners
Association (HOA) to discuss the potential impacts system modifications might have on
the surrounding neighborhood and to identify an agreeable approach to balancing
accommodating Preserve parking and neighborhood quality of life. A letter from the HOA
was attached to the report (Attachment F). Below is a summary of the HOA’s concerns
expressed in their letter:
• Strong concern that moving to an on-demand parking model for all ParkMobile
parking areas in the immediate future may bring back negative traffic and quality-
of-life issues for Preserve neighbors.
• Concern that removing the mandatory three-hour reservation time block will
significantly increase negative traffic and quality-of-life issues.
• Requiring advanced reservations is the most effective way to prevent people from
creating negative traffic impacts while searching for an open parking stall.
• Having the Burma and Rattlesnake trailhead gates installed prior to making
changes to the ParkMobile parking system is important to control after-hours
Preserve use.
• Having adequate parking enforcement presence on site is critical to controlling
negative traffic and parking behavior.
On October 4, 2022, the City Council opted not to make any system changes and
authorized Staff to conduct a survey of visitors in the area to better understand the
challenges they encounter when using the ParkMobile parking system since a survey
would provide additional data on user experience versus verbal and email feedback
received by Staff. The Council directed Staff to return in six months with the survey results
to help determine if and how to proceed with potential modifications to the ParkMobile
parking system.
ParkMobile’s professional services agreement (PSA) with the City expired on December
31, 2022. In addition to seeking direction on potential modifications to the parking system,
this evening, Staff requests approval of an amendment to the PSA through December 31,
2023 (Attachment D). The contract amount of $8,808, which covers monthly fees for
sensors and the reservation platform, would be the same regardless of whether the City
retains the current reservation-required process or shifts to a parking on-demand
approach.
B-3
DISCUSSION:
Survey Results
Based on City Council direction from the October 4, 2022 meeting, Staff developed a six-
question survey to help the City better understand the visitor experience and to help guide
decisions on managing and revising the ParkMobile parking system. The survey was
created using the City’s SurveyMonkey account and was promoted via the ParkMobile
webpage, mobile app, and posted signs on site from December 5, 2022 to February 27,
2023. As a result, the City received 272 responses. Total visitation to the Portuguese
Bend Reserve during the time the survey was implemented was estimated at 32,000
visitors based on trail counter data collected at Burma Road Trail and Rattlesnake T rail.
It is worth noting that the Portuguese Bend Reserve was closed for a total of six days
during the survey period due to inclement weather.
All of the survey responses are attached to this report as Attachment B and are available
online at the following link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-
_2BnDvZ9MytITGQMkJr2oZ9w_3D_3D/
The following charts show response summaries to the survey questions:
B-4
Under 25% of respondents said they typically use the ParkMobile zones. Just under 50%
of respondents said they parked on Crest Road or Crenshaw Boulevard north of Crest
Road (outside of the ParkMobile zones), 10% reported parking in the Del Cerro Park lot,
and 16% specified other locations.
Ql
When visiting the De l Cerro area (Pa ll as Verdes Nature
Prese r ve and/or Del Cerro Park), whe re do you typica lly
pa1 k?
Answered: 266 Skipp ed: 6
In the
Par kMo bile ...
In t h e parking
lo a De l. .•
On Crest oad
o r Cr enshaw ..•
Ot h e r (please
specify):
0% 10% 20% 30% 0% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CH OI CES
In t he Pa rkMoib il e r es er v ed pa r ki ng area o n Cr ens haw so ut h o Cr es Road
In t h e pa r k ing l ot at De l Cer ro Pa rk
On Crest Roa d or Cre ns haw north of Cr es (towar,d Torrance )
Other (p l,ea se specify): Resp onses
TOTA L
RESPONSES
2 .44% 65
10.15% 2
49.25% 131
16 .17% 43
266
B-5
Below is a summary of the “other” responses, indicating additional locations where people
indicated they parked when visiting the Del Cerro area. Some respondents did not
indicate a location but offered their opinions on parking in the area:
• Ladera Linda, Crest Road, on street, Highridge Road, and Whitney Collins Drive
each received one response.
• Five said it was their first time.
• Two said it was a secret.
• Three said the policy was shameful or elitist.
• One said they have stopped using the Preserve.
• Three said they ride or walk there.
• One said they park at a friend’s house in Island View.
• Two said St. John Fisher.
• One said it is too expensive.
• One said it is too dangerous.
B-6
26% of respondents said the ParkMobile system is easy to use, 26 % said it was not easy,
and 48% said it was not easy and provided a reason why.
Below is a summary of the reasons respondents gave as to why the system was not easy.
While there was a wide range of responses, the difficulty of use and opposition to and
frustration with the reservation system were the primary reasons recorded, cited a
combined 67 times. By comparison, 16 respondents said it was too expensive, or they
preferred to park for free.
• Opposed to reservation: 32
• Difficult to use/tech issues: 28
Q2
If applicable, was the ParkMobile Parking Rese rvation
System easy to use?
Ans wered: 239 Skipp ed: 33
Yes
0
If o, p lease
b riefl y ...
0% 10% 20% 30%
ANS\IVER CHOICES
Yes
0
I o: p lease b ri efly i ndicat e wh y:
T OTAL
0% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Res p ons es
RESPONSES
25.94%
26 .36%
47.70%
6.2
63
11
239
B-7
• Too expensive: 14
• Unnecessary/generally opposed: 13
• No times available even though space available: 7
• Elitist/exclusionary/wrong to charge for nature access: 7
• Not aware of parking system: 7
• Prefer free: 2
• Opposed to block reservation: 3
• Opposed to using apps: 2
Six respondents said they had not used the system.
Q3
In the past s ix months, approx imately how many t i mes
have you booked a reservat ion using t he ParkMob ile
Park i ng Reservat i on Sys t em?
Answe red : 265 Sk ipped : 7
Nev er
On ce
Between 2 an d
5 t im es
Mo re t h an 5
times
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 5 0% 60% 70% 60% 90% 100%
AN SWER CHOICES
ever
Once
Betwee n 2 and 5 t imes
Mo re t han 5 t imes
TOTAL
R ES PONSES
78.87%
12 .83%
5 .66%
2.64%
20 9
34
15
7
265
B-8
91% of total respondents said they had booked either once or not all in the past six
months, with 79% indicating they had never used the system. Less than 3% said they
had booked more than five times.
24% of respondents said they planned to continue using the P arkMobile system in the
future, 33% said only that they do not, and 48% said they do not and provided a reason
why.
On the next page, is a summary of the reasons respondents gave as to why they would
not be using ParkMobile going forward:
Q4 El
Do you plan to con t in u e t o use the Pa r kM ob i le Parki ng
Res e rv at i on System in the f ut u re?
Answered: 262 Skipped: 10
Yes
0
If No, p lease
b rie fl y .. ,
0 % 10 % 20% 3 0 %
A N SW ER CH OI CES
Yes
0
I o: p lease b r iefly i ndi cat e wlil y:
T OT AL
0 b 50% 60% 70% 8 0 % 90% 100%
Res p ons es
RES PO NSES
23.66 %
33 .59 %
42.75%
62
88
11
262
B-9
The top responses were that the system is too expensive (24), that it should be free (24),
that they experienced reservation issues (18), that they feel it is greedy, ethically wrong,
elitist, and inequitable (14), and that it is difficult to use (13).
• Too expensive: 24
• Should be free: 24
• Reservations: 18
• Greedy, unethical, elitist, inequitable: 14
• Difficult to use: 13
• General Opposition: 7
• Unsure: 3
• Parking elsewhere: 2
• Public property: 2
• Trailhead closed: 1
• Not needed: 1
• Will try once more: 1
• Residents should park for free:1
Q5
Open-ended question: What changes would you like to see the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes make to the ParkMobile Parking System ?
204 respondents answered this question and 68 opted not to respond. Below is a
summary of the responses.
Respondents largely suggested significant changes to the current approach, with a return
to free parking with no reservations garnering the most responses (85), followed by
eliminating reservations (46), and reducing costs (34). Comments that the parking
approach is elitist or exclusionary in nature made up the next highest response total (24).
No other response totaled above 10. Seven respondents said no changes are needed.
• Free parking/no reservations: 85
• Eliminate reservations: 46
• Reduce cost: 34
• Expressed concern that policy is elitist/exclusionary: 24
• Increase free parking hours/spaces: 9
• Use parking meters: 8
• No changes-system working well: 7
• Make tech easier: 5
• Open up Del Cerro parking to general public: 4
• Offer a senior rate/senior annual pass: 4
• Address traffic/parking risk north of Crenshaw: 4
• Remove time blocks: 4
• Charge residents to park in Del Cerro Park: 3
--
B-10
• Doesn’t use system: 1
• Reduce red/no parking zone: 1
• Increase time blocks when spaces are available: 1
• Verify trails are open before paying: 1
Q6
If you haven't used the ParkMobille Reservation System
before, p l ease ind icate why:
Answe red: 252 Skipped: 20
W as not a wa re
t here was.,.
Prete r o par k
in t he ge ne r ...
R,equ ir eme nt to
make ...
Rese rvatio n
t i me blocks .. ,
ot App li cable
O t her reason
(p lease ...
0% 10 % 20% 30% 0% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10()'%
B-11
Responses were mixed as to why respondents had not used the parking system, but cost
and reservations constituted the majority of responses. Multiple response selections
were allowed. Almost half of the respondents indicated they wanted to park without
paying, and 38% noted the reservation requirement, while 29% selected issues with the
reservation time blocks. 28% of respondents were not aware of the system and 12%
marked “not applicable.” 21% checked “other.” Below is a summary of those responses:
The most common responses were general opposition (15), that parking is too expensive
(11), concerns that the policy was elitist or exclusionary (8), difficulty using system (6),
and opposition to the reservation system (5).
• Opposed: 16
• Expensive: 11
• Elitist/exclusionary: 8
• Difficult to use: 6
• Anti-reservation: 5
• Block time insufficient: 3
• Currently use RPV parking permit: 2
• Should be free: 2
• Acknowledgement of resident concerns 1
• Parking north of Crenshaw needs to be upgraded: 1
• Opposed to Del Cerro resident parking: 1
Frustration with the need for reservations, concern about the expense, and generalized
opposition to the concept of paid parking at that location are the common threads
connecting the survey results. Eliminating the ParkMobile sy stem would be popular with
visitors but would not alleviate the concerns expressed by local residents based on their
experiences before paid parking was implemented. Reducing the fees and/or expanding
the block times without eliminating the reservation tim es would ignore the consistent
frustration expressed by visitors about the need for prior reservations.
ANSWER CHOICES
Was n ot aw ar,e t here was r,ese r vati on pa r ki ng av ailab le
Pre ~er t o par i n t he ge ner al area wi t hout a fee
Req ui rement to make r ese rv at io n a l east one ho ur ahea d o next rese r vat ion tim e
b loc k
Rese r v at ion im e b lo ck s too l o ng: t oo s hort: or at inco nve n ient t i mes
ot Applic ab l e
Oth er reaso n (pl ease speci y): Resp onses
Tota!Respondents:252
HES PO NS ES
28.1 7% 71
4 8.81% 123
38.10 % 96
28.97% 3
12.30% 31
21..43%
B-12
Potential System Modifications
Pursuant to City Council directive at its October 4, 2022 meeting, the following four
potential modification options to the ParkMobile parking system are presented to the City
Council for its consideration this evening. Staff is providing a brief analysis of four options
that would address some of the major concerns expressed by survey respondents .
a. Convert the ParkMobile parking system to an on-demand model.
The advanced reservation parking system implemented on Crenshaw Boulevard,
south of Crest Road, is an uncommon public parking model. Public parking areas do
not usually require an advanced reservation for parking stalls. While the advanced-
reservation system was intended to prevent traffic from visitors driving up and down
the street looking for an open space, Staff and ParkMobile believe an unintended
consequence of this reservation requirement is that it deters a significant number of
visitors from using the ParkMobile parking spaces since there is little desire to plan for
parking in advance of a visit.
In considering transitioning to an on-demand parking model, Staff recommends
keeping as many of the existing parking conditions in place as possible to prevent a
potentially rapid increase in traffic in this area. Under this option, visitors would simply
pull into their desired space and pay to park. Time blocks would remain a static three -
hour block, and the price for parking would remain $10.35. Furthermore, visitors could
extend their parking time in one-hour increments at a prorated cost. Visitors would
also be able to leave their parking spot prior to their three-hour parking block, and the
parking space would become immediately available. When a car leaves a stall,
whether at the three-hour time block or before, the ParkMobile sensor in t he ground
senses the vehicle has left, and the stall will appear as available on the ParkMobile
app and website. Under the current reservation-based parking model, the parking
reservation remained unavailable during the entire reserved three-hour block of time,
regardless of what time the vehicle left the stall. Taking the stall offline during the entire
three-hour block was partly intended to reduce traffic churning in this area.
b. Retain reservation-based parking based on three-hour time blocks and make
modifications to the rate to park.
This option considers retaining the reservation-based parking model while modifying
the rate (cost) per three-hour block of time. The current parking rate is $10.35 for a
three-hour block of time, which includes administration fees. Staff is not
recommending a rate change at this time due to the fact that far more survey
respondents expressed concerns with the reservation system or the charging of any
fee rather than the current price point. It is unknown what effect an increase or
decrease in the parking rate would have on use or revenue.
B-13
c. Retain reservation-based parking, make modifications to duration of time
blocks.
This option considers retaining the reservation -based parking model while modifying
(decreased or increased) the time block durations offered. Currently , the average
length of stay is approximately 1.5 hours. Only a small number of respondents opined
that the 3-hour block was insufficient. Given that response, if the res ervation model
is maintained, no change is recommended.
d. Extend the current two-hour free weekday block of time to a three-hour free
weekday block of time.
This option considers extending the free block of time by one hour. Staff has observed
limited use of the free parking period from 7 a.m. – 9 a.m. on weekdays. Providing a
three-hour free time block would provide more flexibility for visitors wishing to utilize
the free weekday period.
Should the City Council direct Staff not to modify the ParkMobile parking system (Option
No. 5), Staff will continue to closely monitor public use of the area and any emergent
negative impacts.
Professional Service Agreement Amendment No. 2
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve Amendment No. 2 to the
Professional Services Agreement with ParkMobile for app-based parking services in the
Del Cerro area, extending the term by one year through December 31, 2023 and
increasing the contract sum by $8,808 for a not-to-exceed total contract sum of $39,988.
Implementation of any of the modifications to the ParkMobile system discussed previously
in this report would not change the contract amount.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Current ParkMobile Reservation Usage:
Current usage shows reservations increasing when comparing January 2023 through
March 2023 to September 2022 through December 2022. Although it’s worth noting early
2023 reservations for January through March are lower when compared to January
through March 2022 this could be attributed to the weather and repeated closure of trails.
January 2022 to March 2022 was when the City saw an all-time high of 21, 18.5 and 15.6
reservation per day respectively.
Month Reservations Average
Reservations/Day
August 2021 Total Reservations 420 15.9
B-14
Month Reservations Average
Reservations/Day
Paid Parking 247 8
Weekday Public Parking Free 173 7.9
September 2021 Total Reservations 359 13.5
Paid Parking 226 7.5
Weekday Public Parking Free 133 6
October 2021 Total Reservations 380 19.2
Paid Parking 266 12.1
Weekday Public Parking Free 114 7.1
November 2021 Total Reservations 496 18.8
Paid Parking 341 11.4
Weekday Public Parking Free 155 7.4
December 2021 Total Reservations (18 days:
Rain) 231 12.8
Paid Parking 152 8.4
Weekday Public Parking Free 79 4.4
January 2022 Total Reservations 558 21
Paid Parking 426 14.7
Weekday Public Parking Free 132 6.3
February 2022 Total Reservations 484 18.5
Paid Parking 400 14.3
Weekday Public Parking Free 84 4.2
March 2022 Total Reservations 430 15.6
Paid Parking 334 10.8
Weekday Public Parking Free 96 4.8
April 2022 Total Reservations 425 15.8
Paid Parking 301 10
Weekday Public Parking Free 115 5.8
May 2022 Total Reservations 304 11.6
Paid Parking 255 9.1
B-15
Month Reservations Average
Reservations/Day
Weekday Public Parking Free 49 2.5
June 2022 Total Reservations 335 12.1
Paid Parking 257 8.6
Weekday Public Parking Free 78 3.5
July 2022 Total Reservations 376 14
Paid Parking 290 9.7
Weekday Public Parking Free 86 4.3
August 2022 Total Reservations 369 11.9
Paid Parking 260 8.4
Weekday Public Parking Free 109 3.5
September 2022 Total Reservations 206 6.9
Paid Parking 142 4.7
Weekday Public Parking Free 64 2.1
October 2022 Total Reservations 252 8.1
Paid Parking 193 6.2
Weekday Public Parking Free 59 1.9
November 2022 Total Reservations 237 8.5
Paid Parking 237 8.5
Weekday Public Parking Free 0 0
December 2022 Total Reservations 176 7
Paid Parking 176 7
Weekday Public Parking Free 0 0
January 2023 Total Reservations 156 12
Paid Parking 156 12
Weekday Public Parking Free 0 0
February 2023 Total Reservations 349 15.9
Paid Parking 323 14.7
Weekday Public Parking Free 26 1.2
March 2023 Total Reservations 236 16.9
B-16
Month Reservations Average
Reservations/Day
Paid Parking 221 15.8
Weekday Public Parking Free 15 1.1
Traffic Study Update
The City is in the process of conducting a traffic calming study on Crenshaw Boulevard
(north and south of Crest Road) and Park Place. However, at this time, according to the
proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that is being presented to the City Council
at the April 12th CIP Workshop, the traffic study is scheduled to be deferred until Fiscal
Year 2024-25 because of the limited resources and competing priorities in the Public
Works Department.
Rattlesnake and Burma Road Trailhead Gates
The Rattlesnake Trailhead and Burma Road Trailhead gates are designed to control
nighttime access to the Portuguese Bend and Filiorum Nature Reserves. The Rattlesnake
Trailhead gate was completed in March and is fully operational. The Burma Road Gate
Project is expected to be finished within the next month. Significant repairs were needed
after the Burma Road gate was hit twice by vehicles in 2021.
Abalone Cove
Staff is currently researching the possibility of converting the Abalone Cove parking
system to a ParkMobile system.
Up until 2015, visitors paid a parking attendant upon entering the lot at Abalone Cove.
Since 2015, the Abalone Cove parking lot has operated using a SKIDATA parking system
which requires payment before exiting; the payment raises an exit gate. A benefit of this
model is that no advance payment is needed. A number of problems have occurred since
the SKIDATA model was installed, including repeated and increased issues with payment
card industry (PCI) compliance standards, maintenance problems, and an outdated
payment machine (not able to use credit cards with chip technology, Apple Pay, etc.).
The cost to upgrade the current Abalone Cove system with updated SKIDATA hardware
and software is estimated at $35,000-$50,000.
Due to the general satisfaction with the features of the ParkMobile parking system, Staff
will be returning to City Council at a future City Council meeting to receive direction on
several alternative models provided by ParkMobile for consideration to implement at
Abalone Cove. Staff will present costs to implement, different features, benefits, and pros
and cons when comparing the different features.
B-17
CONCLUSION:
Staff seeks Council direction on a number of options to potentially modify the ParkMobile
system to address concerns raised by survey respondents.
If changes are directed, Staff will monitor any impacts, work with the HOA, and report
back to Council by December 2023.
Staff also recommends the City Council approve Amendment No. 2 to the Professional
Services Agreement with ParkMobile, extending the term by one year to December 31,
2023, and increasing the total contract sum by $8,808 to a not-to-exceed amount of
$39,988.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation s, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Maintain the current reservation-based system.
2. Direct staff to make additional or different changes to the ParkMobile system.
3. Do not approve the amendment to the ParkMobile agreement.
B-18
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
(“Amendment No. 2”) by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a general
law city & municipal corporation (“City”), and PARKMOBILE LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company (“Consultant”) is effective as of January 1, 2023.
RECITALS
A. City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement for Professional Services
dated April 20, 2021 (“Agreement”) whereby Consultant agreed to provide app-based parking
services at Del Cerro Park and sections of Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road (the
“Services”) for one year, for a Contract Sum of $24,308, which included equipment installation
costs.
B. On April 20, 2022 City and Consultant amended the Agreement to extend the term
until December 31, 2022 for additional compensation of $5,872 (“Amendment No. 1”).
C. City and Consultant now desire to extend the term until December 31, 2023, for
additional compensation of $8,808, bringing the total Contract Sum to $38,988.
TERMS
1. Contract Changes. The Agreement is amended as provided herein. Deleted text is
indicated in strikethrough and added text in bold italics.
Section 3.2, Contract Sum, is amended to read:
“Contract Sum. Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City
agrees to pay Consultant the amounts specified in the “Schedule 2” and
incorporated herein by this reference. The compensation, including
reimbursement for actual expenses, pursuant to Schedule 2, Section I., shall
not exceed $30,180 (Thirty Thousand One Hundred Eighty Dollars)
$38,988 (Thirty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Eight Dollars)
plus freight charges (the “Contract Sum”), unless additional compensation
is approved pursuant to Section 1.9. In the interest of clarity, the Contract
Sum does not include Reservation Transaction Fees stated in Schedule 2,
Section II.”
Section 4.1, Term, is amended to read:
“The initial term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date
and end one (1) year from the Effective Date (the “Initial Term”). The
Parties may agree to renew or extend the Term of this Agreement upon
terms that are mutually agreeable to the Parties. The date on which this
Agreement is terminated or expires as provided herein is called the
“Termination Date,” and the period from the Effective Date through the
Termination Date is herein called the “Term”.
B-19
The Term is hereby extended through December 31, 2022 2023.
2. Continuing Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by this Amendment No. 2,
all provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. From and
after the date of this Amendment No. 2, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement,
it shall mean the Agreement, as amended by this Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to the Agreement.
3. Affirmation of Agreement; Warranty Re Absence of Defaults. City and
Consultant each ratify and reaffirm each and every one of the respective rights and obligations
arising under the Agreement. Each party represents and warrants to the other that there have been
no written or oral modifications to the Agreement other than as provided herein. Each party
represents and warrants to the other that the Agreement is currently an effective, valid, and binding
obligation.
Consultant represents and warrants to City that, as of the date of this Amendment No. 2,
City is not in default of any material term of the Agreement and that there have been no events
that, with the passing of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a material default
under the Agreement.
City represents and warrants to Consultant that, as of the date of this Amendment No. 2,
Consultant is not in default of any material term of the Agreement and that there have been no
events that, with the passing of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a material
default under the Agreement.
4. Adequate Consideration. The parties hereto irrevocably stipulate and agree that
they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the
obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment No. 2.
5. Authority. The persons executing this Amendment No. 2 on behalf of the parties
hereto warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to
execute and deliver this Amendment No. 2 on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this
Amendment No. 2, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Amendment No. 2, and
(iv) the entering into this Amendment No. 1 does not violate any provision of any other agreement
to which said party is bound.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
---
B-20
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 2 on
the dates set forth below, with express intent that this Amendment No. 2 shall be effective as of
January 1, 2023.
CITY:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a
municipal corporation
____________________________________
Barbara Ferraro, Mayor
Date:_________________, 2023
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
_________________________________
William W. Wynder, City Attorney
CONSULTANT:
PARKMOBILE LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company
By: ________________________________
Name: Tony Stewart
Title: General Counsel & Secretary
By: ________________________________
Name: Jeff Perkins
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:___________________, 2023
Address: 1100 Spring Street NW, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30309
Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required from
each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2) Secretary, any
Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT’S SIGNATURES
SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS
MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT’S BUSINESS ENTITY.
B-21
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On __________, 2023 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true
and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: _____________________________________
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
INDIVIDUAL
CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER_______________________________
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
___________________________________
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________
DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
□ □
□
□ □ □ □
□ □
B-22
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On __________, 2023 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true
and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: _____________________________________
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
INDIVIDUAL
CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER_______________________________
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
___________________________________
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________
DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
□ □
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
B-23
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
1 / 23
24.44%65
10.15%27
49.25%131
16.17%43
Q1 When visiting the Del Cerro area (Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
and/or Del Cerro Park), where do you typically park?
Answered: 266 Skipped: 6
TOTAL 266
#OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY):DATE
1 ladera linda 2/28/2023 9:27 AM
2 Crest road 2/20/2023 3:40 PM
3 La della park 2/19/2023 9:08 AM
4 Street 2/19/2023 7:37 AM
5 Ha 2/18/2023 4:55 PM
6 On Parking mobile reservation side of Park Pl 2/18/2023 12:51 PM
7 Where it’s free 2/18/2023 11:01 AM
8 From my home in sunmist 2/14/2023 7:22 AM
9 I live in the area 2/12/2023 11:04 AM
10 By John fisher 2/11/2023 8:35 AM
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
In the
ParkMobile...
In the parking
lot at Del...
On Crest Road
or Crenshaw...
Other (please
specify):
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
In the ParkMobile reserved parking area on Crenshaw south of Crest Road
In the parking lot at Del Cerro Park
On Crest Road or Crenshaw north of Crest (toward Torrance)
Other (please specify):
B-24
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
2 / 23
11 Anywhere there isn't a fee that was implemented by upset old people 2/8/2023 9:20 AM
12 Side of the rode 2/4/2023 1:47 PM
13 This is my first time parking here 2/4/2023 11:14 AM
14 I used to park on the street parking that is now mobile reserved, but since I was unable to
reserve parking upon arrival, I parked near the church.
2/3/2023 7:43 PM
15 no place 2/2/2023 9:19 AM
16 N/A 1/29/2023 1:13 PM
17 First time here.1/29/2023 11:28 AM
18 It's dangerous!1/29/2023 9:19 AM
19 First time using parkmobile 1/29/2023 8:50 AM
20 When I can get a reservation 1/28/2023 1:12 PM
21 Whitley collins 1/28/2023 9:58 AM
22 I ride or walk in. Parking has been too difficult in past.1/24/2023 8:46 PM
23 Down the road 1/24/2023 8:02 AM
24 I walk 1/24/2023 4:15 AM
25 I walk there 1/10/2023 5:11 PM
26 Mix of paid and non-paid 1/8/2023 6:28 PM
27 Couldn’t get in, too many RPV assholes 1/8/2023 3:31 PM
28 This was my first vist 1/7/2023 3:54 PM
29 We find free parking 1/2/2023 2:05 PM
30 Down the hill so I don’t have to pay $10 for parking.1/2/2023 12:55 PM
31 no longer use the Preserve 1/2/2023 8:07 AM
32 Zone c 1/1/2023 2:28 PM
33 Highridge 12/29/2022 12:38 PM
34 Walk from home 12/27/2022 1:42 PM
35 First visit 12/27/2022 1:14 AM
36 On crest, Crenshaw and in parking area 12/26/2022 4:23 PM
37 It’s shameful to make people pay $10 to park. I’ve lived here my entire life, and the park is a
public space and should be accessible to everyone. Not just those who can pay. Shame on
P.V.
12/26/2022 1:25 PM
38 Friend’s house in Island View 12/26/2022 1:21 PM
39 As close as I can get without having to pay 12/25/2022 3:09 PM
40 side roads 12/24/2022 12:46 PM
41 It’s a secret, assholes.12/21/2022 3:22 PM
42 First time 12/21/2022 2:00 PM
43 Do not want elitist city leaders to know where I park or they will create a new way to harass
hikers
12/9/2022 5:00 PM
B-25
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
3 / 23
25.94%62
26.36%63
47.70%114
Q2 If applicable, was the ParkMobile Parking Reservation System easy to
use?
Answered: 239 Skipped: 33
TOTAL 239
#IF NO, PLEASE BRIEFLY INDICATE WHY:DATE
1 ddint know about it 2/28/2023 9:51 AM
2 n/a 2/28/2023 9:39 AM
3 I like things that are free 2/28/2023 9:37 AM
4 to expensive no last muinute option 2/28/2023 9:30 AM
5 did not know 2/28/2023 9:27 AM
6 cost prohibitive 2/28/2023 9:22 AM
7 time+ money 2/28/2023 9:18 AM
8 Price. Ahead of time reservation. Too short of time.2/28/2023 9:12 AM
9 did not know 2/28/2023 9:10 AM
10 I didn't know about it 2/28/2023 9:06 AM
11 Another app ...2/26/2023 3:08 PM
12 It's unnecessary 2/26/2023 10:57 AM
13 Reservations must be made at least one hour ahead of parking 2/24/2023 9:19 PM
14 I will never pay a single penny in support of an inequitable paid parking system.2/22/2023 8:14 AM
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Yes
No
If No, please
briefly...
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
If No, please briefly indicate why:
B-26
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
4 / 23
15 1-hour reservation requirement requires too much foresight. Poor reception in the area makes it
hard to sign up when nearby.
2/20/2023 3:40 PM
16 The hour in advance requirement makes this area completely inaccessible to anyone but
locals.
2/19/2023 2:42 PM
17 Many open parking spots, but no times available to reserve 2/19/2023 2:37 PM
18 Finding the zones is not easy and reserving one hour prior is inconvenient 2/19/2023 10:05 AM
19 Never used 2/19/2023 9:08 AM
20 I didn’t know about it 2/19/2023 7:37 AM
21 What if I don't have a cellphone with internet.2/18/2023 4:52 PM
22 The data doesn’t work as well in this area so it’s hard to reserve 2/18/2023 3:26 PM
23 Spontaneous visit. Did not reserve 2/18/2023 11:51 AM
24 Too expensive and had no time options 2/17/2023 5:46 PM
25 It is impossible to use, and there should be a class action suit to stop you from imposing this
unfair burden on everyone
2/15/2023 1:57 PM
26 Because we tried to park at 1100 for the 12 slot and it wasn’t available Burt there were zero
cars parked. Ridiculous
2/15/2023 11:09 AM
27 There was no one parked there, every spot was empty, and it wouldn’t let me pay for a spot
until 3 hours after we got there
2/14/2023 11:42 AM
28 Spaces were empty and couldn’t make a real time reservation. That’s absurd! Weekdays with
cool weather are not busy
2/14/2023 9:58 AM
29 It’s ridiculous 2/14/2023 7:22 AM
30 It's unnecesaary 2/12/2023 11:04 AM
31 You must plan in blocks... unless there at 7...you pay full and get less...and if there in between
blocks you must pay double for 2 blocks of time
2/12/2023 10:47 AM
32 Too cumbersome 2/12/2023 7:37 AM
33 Hikes are spontaneous. I don't want to reserve or pay to park.2/9/2023 12:55 PM
34 Horrible, most people come to del cerro day of and do not plan 3 days ahead for city parking
this should be available day of with a spot number and pay for parking.
2/8/2023 1:31 PM
35 Why start charging a fee because of traffic complaints. Especially when people want to be
healthy during the last few years.
2/8/2023 9:20 AM
36 Didn’t know it was private or couldn’t park on the side 2/6/2023 10:38 AM
37 Unnecessary and alienating. The parking system complicates what should be an easily
accessible activity.
2/5/2023 1:08 PM
38 Confusing, please go back to the way it was 2/4/2023 4:22 PM
39 Why is it so expensive?2/4/2023 1:21 PM
40 The use of a reservation system is exclusionary and cumbersome.2/4/2023 11:14 AM
41 Most of the QR codes lead to surveys, not street parking. The parking can’t be paid for upon
arrival.
2/3/2023 7:43 PM
42 i dont have a smart phone 2/2/2023 9:19 AM
43 Did not use 2/1/2023 12:08 PM
44 Its Ridiculous pricing 2/1/2023 9:20 AM
45 Plenty of parking but can't reserve for the time I arrived.1/29/2023 1:13 PM
46 All booked 1/29/2023 9:19 AM
B-27
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
5 / 23
47 Unfair ..: I pay taxes I shouldn’t pay to use nature 1/29/2023 9:19 AM
48 The whole system is unnecessary 1/28/2023 4:28 PM
49 Have to plan too far ahead and we have a baby with a nap schedule 1/28/2023 1:12 PM
50 I heard you have to reserve in advamce 1/28/2023 9:58 AM
51 It needed the letter "C" input. My phone only had numbers in the pop up keyboard. It was very
hard to try to see the phone QR code in the sunlight.
1/27/2023 8:38 PM
52 When busy it's too difficult to figure out how to use 1/26/2023 9:25 AM
53 Got here and wasn't aware of parking change 1/24/2023 8:02 AM
54 Too complicated and the need to make reservations ahead of time is cumbersome 1/24/2023 4:15 AM
55 You can only reserve the day before. Not many people plan that far in advance to visit a park!
This is extremely limiting and restrictive.
1/23/2023 12:49 PM
56 Very confusing where the spots actually are 1/22/2023 9:27 AM
57 No Google pay integration, didn't like the reservation windows 1/22/2023 8:55 AM
58 Time limit restrictions to be able to fully enjoy all trails 1/21/2023 3:59 PM
59 Is bullshit that y’all charging ppl to enjoy the outdoors and closing opportunities to families to
enjoy nature
1/21/2023 3:58 PM
60 Should be free 1/21/2023 2:33 PM
61 It's ridiculous that you need to book this in advance. Sometimes things are spontaneous. Why
not use this just like any other parking meter?
1/10/2023 5:11 PM
62 It’s easy. But it sucks.1/8/2023 6:28 PM
63 I did try, parking has to be reserved an hour in advance, ridiculous when no cars were even
parken there
1/7/2023 3:54 PM
64 It requires one to spend at least 10 minutes filling in information .1/4/2023 1:29 PM
65 We could not reserve a spot during the time when we were there. Only future time slots are
available even though there was plenty of parking. We would have paid but had no option to.
1/3/2023 9:51 PM
66 I gave up on the web site, it was too confusing.1/3/2023 5:48 PM
67 I don't like your system-- never felt there was any need for it.1/3/2023 12:36 PM
68 not willing to make advanced reservation. OK to walk from N of Crest 1/2/2023 3:55 PM
69 It never works 1/2/2023 2:05 PM
70 It’s ridiculous you have to make a reservation to park.1/2/2023 12:55 PM
71 It’s too cumbersome. And now that Covid is over very few people are parking here and the
system is not necessary. It is overpriced too.
1/2/2023 11:12 AM
72 cumbersome and expensive for weekly use, too rigid 1/2/2023 8:07 AM
73 Timing and connecting unrealistic 1/1/2023 9:33 PM
74 Too expensive 1/1/2023 3:33 PM
75 I don't understand 1/1/2023 2:28 PM
76 It wouldn’t let me pay. The cell service at the parking spots wouldn’t load. Nothing the the Del
Certo Park said anything about reserved parking.
12/30/2022 1:23 PM
77 Too expensive 12/29/2022 3:49 PM
78 Would have had to wait over an hour for the reservation when there was no one there.12/29/2022 12:38 PM
79 We were taking family pictures so we had multiple cars and did not know about the need to
register ahead of time. It would have been better to reserve it at the time
12/28/2022 9:22 PM
B-28
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
6 / 23
80 It’s a stupid system.12/28/2022 2:06 PM
81 Didn't know you had to book specific block of time, and if you don't do it soon enough, you
miss out till the next block
12/27/2022 1:42 PM
82 The requirement to book 1 hour in advance made it difficult for someone already not familiar
with the system
12/27/2022 1:14 AM
83 Confusing 12/26/2022 7:21 PM
84 Did not use 12/26/2022 2:38 PM
85 The fact I need to reserve an hour in advance is not helpful nor useful to visitors outside of the
immediate area who don’t know
12/26/2022 1:27 PM
86 See answer 1 12/26/2022 1:25 PM
87 Worst system ever. Plenty of parking but the reservation wasn’t for another 4 hrs 12/26/2022 10:11 AM
88 N/A 12/25/2022 3:09 PM
89 Try multi times with no avail 12/25/2022 12:22 PM
90 It’s not equitable for those who can’t afford to spend $10 to visit public trails.12/25/2022 11:48 AM
91 10 fucking dollars!12/25/2022 11:43 AM
92 Should not have to pay to use public land 12/24/2022 4:39 PM
93 but i don’t use it…12/24/2022 12:46 PM
94 Did not use 12/23/2022 8:26 PM
95 Don’t want an app on phone.12/23/2022 4:45 PM
96 Have to reserve which is silly when it's not busy 12/22/2022 9:37 AM
97 Too old to use 12/22/2022 12:12 AM
98 Bad 12/21/2022 5:20 PM
99 It was much easier to park before all this permit parking happened 12/21/2022 3:22 PM
100 Hard to find info 12/21/2022 2:00 PM
101 cumbersome, expensive and time allotted is too short 12/20/2022 4:25 PM
102 Never tried it. Too much trouble, too much $.12/20/2022 1:55 PM
103 Too difficult 12/20/2022 9:05 AM
104 Confusing for a first time user 12/19/2022 3:17 PM
105 Too expensive, and the reservation system is not convenient 12/18/2022 9:54 PM
106 I had no idea a reservation was necessary. When we arrived, all parking spots were open, but
the next available reservation was four hours later. It made no sense.
12/17/2022 10:41 AM
107 Did not use 12/16/2022 11:47 AM
108 It asks for too much info 12/10/2022 2:09 PM
109 Never tied it, but too expensive.12/9/2022 3:08 PM
110 Expecting people to reserve an hour in advance and to pay for 2+ hours is ridiculous.
Sometimes I come randomly and if I don’t reserve before the time block, I can’t park. And
even if I could, I don’t want to pay that much if I’m only planning to be here an hour.
12/9/2022 9:37 AM
111 Because it required me to book 1 hour in advance to my visit. When i got here i couldnt park.12/8/2022 5:54 PM
112 Too expensive, and have to use this in advance.12/8/2022 1:43 PM
113 You shouldnt have to pay for a hike 12/6/2022 8:06 AM
114 Site and App should be more intuitive with fewer clicks required to reserve. Layout and design 12/1/2022 8:46 AM
B-29
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
7 / 23
is not as seemless and simple for users as it should be
B-30
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
8 / 23
78.87%209
12.83%34
5.66%15
2.64%7
Q3 In the past six months, approximately how many times have you
booked a reservation using the ParkMobile Parking Reservation System?
Answered: 265 Skipped: 7
TOTAL 265
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Never
Once
Between 2 and
5 times
More than 5
times
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Never
Once
Between 2 and 5 times
More than 5 times
B-31
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
9 / 23
23.66%62
33.59%88
42.75%112
Q4 Do you plan to continue to use the ParkMobile Parking Reservation
System in the future?
Answered: 262 Skipped: 10
TOTAL 262
#IF NO, PLEASE BRIEFLY INDICATE WHY:DATE
1 n/a 2/28/2023 9:39 AM
2 money 2/28/2023 9:37 AM
3 expensive 2/28/2023 9:30 AM
4 parking bottom area 2/28/2023 9:27 AM
5 time+money 2/28/2023 9:18 AM
6 Why would I pay money for something that should be free 2/28/2023 9:12 AM
7 Taxpayers pay for the rerve and homeowners don't let us park. Not going to support the rpv
city hijinx.
2/26/2023 3:08 PM
8 It's greedy 2/26/2023 10:57 AM
9 Too expensive also not practical to reserve hours in advance 2/25/2023 11:23 AM
10 Too expensive; blocks to short; no immediate payment; against the concept.2/24/2023 9:19 PM
11 I will never pay a single penny in support of an inequitable paid parking system.2/22/2023 8:14 AM
12 1-hour reservation requirement 2/20/2023 3:40 PM
13 Expensive and inaccessible 2/19/2023 2:42 PM
14 For awhile it didn’t work at all. It’s not easy to navigate and the time restrictions are not good.2/19/2023 10:05 AM
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Yes
No
If No, please
briefly...
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
If No, please briefly indicate why:
B-32
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
10 / 23
15 Not sure if I need to 2/19/2023 9:44 AM
16 Unsure 2/19/2023 7:37 AM
17 I’m not paying $10 for vip parking to hike when I can go to so many other great spots in LA 2/18/2023 11:01 AM
18 Too expensive 2/18/2023 9:44 AM
19 This is public propery 2/17/2023 5:46 PM
20 Because I have been unsuccessful each time I have tried to use it. And there was plenty of
available parking each time.
2/15/2023 11:09 AM
21 Too expensive and didn’t allow a real time instant reservation 2/14/2023 9:58 AM
22 Too complicate and stupid concept 2/14/2023 7:22 AM
23 I’m not paying.2/12/2023 2:02 PM
24 Parking on Crenshaw should be free 2/12/2023 11:04 AM
25 I'd rather walk the half mile than pay over 10 for something that was free...2/12/2023 10:47 AM
26 Not good or fair.2/12/2023 7:37 AM
27 Hikes are spontaneous. I don't want to reserve or pay to park. Parking should be free.2/9/2023 12:55 PM
28 Costs too much 2/8/2023 8:33 PM
29 Horrible system 2/8/2023 1:31 PM
30 Why pay for a parking fee that was set up by rich cry babies.2/8/2023 9:20 AM
31 Refuse to pay for a service that should be readily accessible to the public.2/5/2023 1:08 PM
32 Because it’s dumb to charge for parking and if you have to it should cost less 2/4/2023 1:21 PM
33 It’s idiotic.2/4/2023 11:14 AM
34 Unsure. It was very inconvenient. I would use it if I could pay upon arrival.2/3/2023 7:43 PM
35 Too expensive, not convenient for spur of the moment decision to visit area 2/3/2023 5:50 PM
36 I 2/2/2023 3:26 PM
37 I dont have a smart phone 2/2/2023 9:19 AM
38 Price is to high for short amount of time there 2/1/2023 12:08 PM
39 It’s ridiculous to have to pay a fee.1/29/2023 7:08 PM
40 I don't always know when my availability will allow me to hike and typically by the time I know
it's all reserved
1/29/2023 9:19 AM
41 This needs to be removed 1/29/2023 9:19 AM
42 I don't know 1/29/2023 6:16 AM
43 Not necessary, it's should be free, been free every other time I've visited 1/28/2023 4:45 PM
44 I don't plan my visits far enough in advance to reserve a spot 1/28/2023 1:17 PM
45 I would if I could do an immediate reservation 1/28/2023 1:12 PM
46 too much money and stairs are closed 1/28/2023 10:03 AM
47 Too hard for my peninsula friends who aren’t RPV 1/28/2023 9:58 AM
48 I would if I can get it to work.1/27/2023 8:38 PM
49 The cost is too great given that this is a public space and free parking in nearby 1/26/2023 2:53 PM
50 I can usually find parking on crest 1/26/2023 9:25 AM
51 Bro why do we have to pay now.1/25/2023 3:18 PM
B-33
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
11 / 23
52 Bad idea. Only benefits the people living near the park. Bad for everyone else 1/24/2023 4:15 AM
53 I’ll never pay to park when it should be and was free.1/22/2023 7:40 PM
54 See above 1/22/2023 8:55 AM
55 Free community parking 1/21/2023 3:59 PM
56 Charging people $10 to park is outrageous 1/21/2023 3:58 PM
57 Should be free 1/21/2023 2:33 PM
58 I’ll probably try to find places that are free and don’t require a reservation 1/18/2023 11:27 PM
59 I think it’s BS that residents who live near walking trails are upset that people walk on these
trails.
1/8/2023 6:28 PM
60 Does work. Too many RPV assholes 1/8/2023 3:31 PM
61 It should be FREE to everyone.1/4/2023 1:29 PM
62 Yes, if available.1/3/2023 9:51 PM
63 It's an insult to visitors to insist they pay for parking.1/3/2023 5:48 PM
64 Have not and will not use it. Seems many people feel the same-- These parking spaces are
never filled!!! I hike in the preserve every week and have yet to see anyone park there.
1/3/2023 12:36 PM
65 Rather just park as needed 1/3/2023 11:29 AM
66 Because it doesn't work and it's confusing 1/2/2023 2:05 PM
67 Same as above. The system is stupid and a waste of time/money.1/2/2023 12:55 PM
68 Because the trailhead was closed. I'm never going to pay in advance and come here again 1/2/2023 12:08 PM
69 Overpriced. Not necessary because few people parking here now that Covid is over.1/2/2023 11:12 AM
70 see 2 1/2/2023 8:07 AM
71 timing and connecting unrealistic 1/1/2023 9:33 PM
72 Expensive and inconvenient 1/1/2023 8:57 PM
73 I’ll try it one more time.12/30/2022 1:23 PM
74 Way too expensive 12/29/2022 3:49 PM
75 Not convenient 12/29/2022 12:38 PM
76 I think this limits options for going to the public spaces as you have to wait an hour 12/28/2022 9:22 PM
77 Nature should be free and inclusive. This makes the outdoors inaccessible to lower income
families.
12/28/2022 2:56 PM
78 Paying for parking is stupid especially when it’s street parking.12/28/2022 2:06 PM
79 I mean, if it was easier to book just an hour ahead, I might bring friends to park and hike 12/27/2022 1:42 PM
80 I believe it’s discriminatory to have this kind of parking system in place makes it difficult for
anyone not living in the area to visit
12/27/2022 1:14 AM
81 Don’t want to pay 12/26/2022 7:21 PM
82 It sucks a lot. The hour buffer to a reservation is only meant to limit public access 12/26/2022 1:27 PM
83 See answer #1.12/26/2022 1:25 PM
84 Not paying to park at what should be an open public park.12/26/2022 12:17 PM
85 I’m pissed this system is whack 12/26/2022 10:11 AM
86 Because it’s expensive 12/25/2022 11:48 AM
87 It’s a ripoff. You people are rich enough 12/25/2022 11:43 AM
B-34
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
12 / 23
88 See above 12/24/2022 4:39 PM
89 as much taxes as we pay, why should i pay for parking on a public road i already pay taxes for 12/24/2022 12:46 PM
90 Too expensive. Too much trouble.12/23/2022 8:26 PM
91 Don’t want electronic parking 12/23/2022 4:45 PM
92 Too old to use 12/22/2022 12:12 AM
93 Its terrible 12/21/2022 5:20 PM
94 Because it sucks to have to pay for a permit 12/21/2022 3:22 PM
95 comment same as #2 above 12/20/2022 4:25 PM
96 See above.12/20/2022 1:55 PM
97 Too time consuming 12/20/2022 9:05 AM
98 Incredibly expensive to park on a public road 12/19/2022 3:27 PM
99 It’s too expensive 12/18/2022 9:54 PM
100 This is dumb, it is a rip off to people trying to enjoy nature and a quiet walk.12/16/2022 2:37 PM
101 Prefer to park a few blocks away for free.12/15/2022 11:26 AM
102 It’s a ridiculous price meant to keep people of color away 12/12/2022 8:35 PM
103 It’s too expensive 12/10/2022 10:39 PM
104 It’s expensive 12/10/2022 2:09 PM
105 It’s ridiculous that residents of PV are being charged to enjoy our neighborhood 12/10/2022 12:57 PM
106 Goal is to not give one dime to the elitist snobs that have been driving hikers away for years.12/9/2022 5:00 PM
107 I stay an hour to an hours and a half but need to pay for three hours. You need to book the day
before. My schedule is not that predictable
12/9/2022 2:32 PM
108 Because it never works for the times/hours I need it.12/9/2022 9:37 AM
109 I think its too expensive, inaccessible, and the varying rates dont make sense 12/8/2022 5:54 PM
110 Too expensive. And seems ridiculous. But I guess it works for the one percent.12/8/2022 1:43 PM
111 parking for a public nature reserve should be free 12/6/2022 2:25 PM
112 Too high in price 12/6/2022 8:06 AM
B-35
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
13 / 23
Q5 What changes would you like to see the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
make to the ParkMobile Parking System?
Answered: 204 Skipped: 68
#RESPONSES DATE
1 add it to the google maps entry for the paprk 2/28/2023 9:51 AM
2 FREE 2/28/2023 9:37 AM
3 cheaper parking 2/28/2023 9:30 AM
4 more reasonable parking fees 2/28/2023 9:22 AM
5 Eliminate it 2/28/2023 9:18 AM
6 Free parking or non discriminate parking against those who can't afford it. What you all do to
reduce people who park there is allow those who have money or those who can pay a fine.
Everyone else who may or may not have children, elderly, disabilities, or come from
communities or backgrounds with limited income need to walk further which discrimates who
has easy access to nature. Making the reservation free would allow everyone equal opportunity
for everyone and still limit parking spaces.
2/28/2023 9:12 AM
7 Less red/no pkg-open - 3hr parking when street is empty.2/28/2023 9:06 AM
8 Fee is too expensive. I understand you don’t want overcrowd or be exclusive but this is too
expensive to enjoy the trails. Please lower the price.
2/26/2023 9:01 PM
9 Discontinue it 2/26/2023 10:57 AM
10 Get rid of it a return to having open parking.2/24/2023 9:19 PM
11 I would like RPV to remove the inequitable ParkMobile Parking System. RPV and its residents
are privileged to have an abundance of open space, including the Portuguese Bend Reserve
(PBR). In contrast, residents in many neighboring low income communities are lucky if they
have a single small pocket park nearby where they live. Instead of creating an additional
access barrier through paid parking, RPV should be doing everything in its power to make
accessibility areas like PBR easier. RPV should focus on creating a safer pedestrian
environment along Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Rd—install a green median, wider sidewalks,
crosswalks, bike lanes, or traffic enforcement. There is no need for a 40'+ road in this area,
which only enables speeding and reckless driving. Speaking of speeding, what is RPV doing to
stop residents from surrounding neighborhoods from racing down Crenshaw Blvd towards Crest
Rd? That should be a top priority for RPV. The ParkMobile Parking System caters to residents
who complained about “chaos” near these parking areas, but is it too much to ask for them to
drive a little more cautiously along Crenshaw Blvd from the PBR trailhead to Crest Rd? How
can residents not see that they are a part of the problem and why is RPV enabling them to
ignore this narrative? Charging $10.35 for a parking space is outrageous and it is clear as day
that RPV means to drive people away from parking south of Crest Rd. Now who would we think
paying $10.35 to access a casual hiking area is affordable for...residents of the Palos Verdes
Peninsula could afford it, but what about residents from nearby lower income communities? If
the difference for someone from a lower income community accessing the PBR is their ability
to pay for parking, does RPV feel good about itself for creating an exclusionary system? And
how generous of RPV offering free parking for 1.75 hours on weekdays from 7-8:45 AM. This is
truly kind of RPV and shows that the City cares. Once again, RPV and its residents are
privileged to have accessible public open space resources and should take pride in creating
more opportunity for access. And if RPV residents can’t bring themselves to this
commonsense approach, then the City is responsible for taking a path that prioritizes equity
and inclusion. The ParkMobile Parking System only further supports public perception that
RPV is an elitist city that wants to keep others out of their pristine neighborhoods. And I don’t
need to elaborate on who I mean by “others”, because I’m confident that RPV residents are
aware of who I’m referring to. People will not forget about what RPV is doing through this
parking system and it’s a stain on the City’s history. One day, RPV will wake up and be
2/22/2023 8:14 AM
B-36
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
14 / 23
embarrassed that they ever implemented a system so blatantly designed to drive undesirable
visitors away from a public treasure.
12 Remove 1-hour reservation requirement. Install parking meters since reception is bad in the
area.
2/20/2023 3:40 PM
13 Stop charging people 2/20/2023 10:20 AM
14 This is not an equitable and accessible option for regular people. This is an unjust cash
grab/deterrent to keep regular people out of wealthy areas
2/20/2023 9:35 AM
15 Make this park and the parking nearby accessible to ALL, not the wealthy locals.2/19/2023 2:42 PM
16 More inclusive 2/19/2023 2:37 PM
17 I don’t want to pay to go for a hike :(2/19/2023 12:34 PM
18 Pay with credit card on the spot. Allow for some free parking during certain hours.2/19/2023 10:05 AM
19 Get rid of the system.2/19/2023 9:46 AM
20 Free parking 2/19/2023 9:44 AM
21 NIL 2/19/2023 9:08 AM
22 Eliminate it or charge a reasonable rate 2/19/2023 8:44 AM
23 It shouldn’t require advance reservations - that is purposefully excluding average visitors….
We don’t require require you reserve street parking to visit our beautiful beaches in Manhattan
beach…
2/19/2023 7:37 AM
24 Classist system that makes it inaccessible for those with limited resources .2/18/2023 9:06 PM
25 Hehe 2/18/2023 4:55 PM
26 Meter parking 2/18/2023 4:52 PM
27 Get rid of it 2/18/2023 4:15 PM
28 Less expensive or free 2/18/2023 3:26 PM
29 Remove reservation system 2/18/2023 11:51 AM
30 Get rid of it! It must be illegal.2/18/2023 11:04 AM
31 No one uses. We are athletic people 2/18/2023 10:10 AM
32 This is ridiculous 2/18/2023 9:48 AM
33 Allow to pay when you get there instead of reserve in advance. Pay by the hour for flexibility 2/18/2023 9:44 AM
34 Get rid of it 2/17/2023 8:15 PM
35 Eliminate it. Open the parking lot for del cerro park 2/17/2023 5:46 PM
36 Stop this bullshit and let people park and enjoy nature. Even those who aren’t residence. We
don’t stop you from coming to our parks just cause you don’t live in Los Angeles. This is
greatly offensive and abuse of your authority. The spots are completely empty ever since this
system has been post not only because it’s impossible to use, but that is one reason.
2/15/2023 1:57 PM
37 Allow parking if available - even If it’s the current time.2/15/2023 11:09 AM
38 It shouldn’t be by reservation you should just be able to pay for parking when you get there if
there’s empty spots. This is a terrible system that doesn’t work
2/14/2023 11:42 AM
39 A one size fits all approach with reservation periods is not a well thought out solution. I came
on a cloudy and cool Tuesday morning. Only one spot was occupied, yet I couldn’t book a
reservation for the time and had to move. First available time was noon, I arrived at 10. Rates
are expensive for a local hike. Prices need to be dropped or eliminated and the reservation
system needs a more realistic approach if it’s to be effective for the community
2/14/2023 9:58 AM
40 Free parking for everyone, it makes it easy even for residents like me that would like to drive
at del cerro
2/14/2023 7:22 AM
B-37
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
15 / 23
41 Free parking 2/13/2023 9:17 AM
42 Charge RPV residents to park at Del Cerro Park. Why do they get free parking with a permit?2/12/2023 2:02 PM
43 This is offensive. L live in the area and the parking on Crenshaw should revert to being free
and available to everyone. Also, remodel Del Cero park and add more parking to the flat area
closes to the street which is very seldom used.
2/12/2023 11:04 AM
44 Reduce the charges...you are keeping the public away due to the rich people who dont want us
up near their enclaves
2/12/2023 10:47 AM
45 Get rid of it.2/12/2023 7:37 AM
46 Na 2/10/2023 2:53 PM
47 Remove the reservation system. Very few cars ever park there. They park down Crenshaw and
that road can be dangerous due to a high traffic flow and steep incline.
2/9/2023 12:55 PM
48 Reduce the price 2/8/2023 8:33 PM
49 No pay for parking or spot numbers to park then pay as you arrive like all California parks.2/8/2023 1:31 PM
50 Delete the parking fee and just have a first come first serve reservation spot via website only
with printable pass. We just want to be healthy.
2/8/2023 9:20 AM
51 Parking on the curb 2/6/2023 10:38 AM
52 The new parking system is classist and exclusionary of other nearby residents. The beach, the
trails, and the nature should be accessible to all. By imposing parking fees when there is
plenty of space available, you limit the experience to the few.
2/5/2023 1:08 PM
53 Why make things complicated? First come, first serve made sense before 2/4/2023 4:22 PM
54 There should be no reason why we should pay to park on a public street 2/4/2023 2:06 PM
55 Number on parking stop 2/4/2023 1:47 PM
56 Remove it. Just put in regular meters. You’re doing too much.2/4/2023 1:21 PM
57 No, the systems is great!2/4/2023 11:24 AM
58 None, I find the reservation system very convenient 2/4/2023 11:23 AM
59 I would like the city to eliminate this system immediately.2/4/2023 11:14 AM
60 Remove the one hour advance registration 2/4/2023 9:04 AM
61 Parking meters would have been more accessible/appropriate. Or some other method that
allows you to pay while you are there. It’s not easy to remember the site to make sure you can
reserve before you drive to the location.
2/3/2023 7:43 PM
62 Get rid of it and put in meters. But if the purpose was to reduce visitors and keep people away,
it’s working.
2/3/2023 5:50 PM
63 Take this thing off. It’s not like we’re gunna be here forever 2/2/2023 3:21 PM
64 Get rid of it 2/2/2023 1:29 PM
65 This is a ridiculous system intended to discriminate against people from other communities
who would like to use PUBLIC trails, initiated by the arrogant racist residents in the area.
2/2/2023 9:19 AM
66 Cheaper price 2/1/2023 12:08 PM
67 Not needing a reservation to park in a public roadway. Its outrageous.2/1/2023 9:20 AM
68 Get rid of it. It’s a public street. Going on hikes and spending time within nature should be
more accessible to people, not less.
1/29/2023 7:08 PM
69 Let me pay when I arrive instead of making wait. If I arrive at 1 why can't I pay to park at 1
why do I have to wait until 4. Shouldn't have to plan to go hiking it's nature should be able to
show up when I choose.
1/29/2023 1:13 PM
70 No reservations for parking 1/29/2023 9:19 AM
B-38
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
16 / 23
71 This is elitism and unfair. You do not own the mountain .1/29/2023 9:19 AM
72 $10.35 is ridiculously high.1/29/2023 8:50 AM
73 Park and pay at the spot.1/29/2023 8:40 AM
74 I don't know 1/29/2023 6:16 AM
75 Make it free 1/28/2023 4:45 PM
76 Eliminate the system and bring back open public parking 1/28/2023 4:28 PM
77 First come, first serve parking. Eliminate reservations 1/28/2023 1:17 PM
78 Immediate reservations. There were a lot of spots empty but we could t reserve for another 2
hours. I had even checked in the AM and only the 1PM was available.
1/28/2023 1:12 PM
79 Develop more free parking spaces/areas closer to the beginning of the trail, or lower the cost
by an extreme margin
1/28/2023 1:02 PM
80 Free parking no reservations 1/28/2023 1:02 PM
81 lower price and add stairs back 1/28/2023 10:03 AM
82 Let people drive up and pay like at the beach. And open up free parking at part of Crenshaw,
like near St John Fisher.
1/28/2023 9:58 AM
83 Use a more senior-friendly process. I could not get it to work. I think the rates are nuts. Is
there ALSO a $2-4 charge from ParkMobile in addition to the $10 plus for 2 hours??
1/27/2023 8:38 PM
84 Make it almost free. A lot of folks would love to enjoy the outdoor but are on fixed income 1/27/2023 8:28 PM
85 Remove it.1/27/2023 4:53 PM
86 Longer hours and lesser fees, particularly for seniors Like us!1/26/2023 2:53 PM
87 Less expensive and reservation not needed 1/26/2023 9:25 AM
88 Take it away. What’s the point of making the park and hike less accessible.1/25/2023 3:18 PM
89 Make it free. It costs nothing.1/25/2023 1:36 PM
90 NA 1/24/2023 8:02 AM
91 Get rid of it!!!! There is no need other than to protect people who live in a small area to the
detriment of everyone else. I have seen so many near misses of cars almost hitting parker’s
along Crenshaw north of Crest who are now forced to park along a guardrail and then step out
of their cars into traffic. NOT SAFE AND NOT NECESSARY! It is just a matter of time until
someone gets hit
1/24/2023 4:15 AM
92 Pricing is ridiculous. Fixed time. Slots is ridiculous.1/23/2023 3:47 PM
93 Make parking available the day of and reduce the price. Get rid of the reservation aspect.1/23/2023 12:49 PM
94 Eliminate it. Or if not, just install meters like at the Esplanade. Also charge RPV residents to
park as well at Del Cerro Park.
1/22/2023 7:40 PM
95 Eliminate it and make parking easy and free for the citizens of California. Portuguese Bend is
a state funded reserve, not your private property. You are racists.
1/22/2023 3:12 PM
96 I grew up in PV and Del Crrro was my favorite park and hiking spot, it’s upsetting it’s now so
inaccessible and expensive to visit. I have 3 small children now, I cannot plan so far in
advance when I will arrive to this park, it’s a beautiful place that now is closed off to the public,
$10 for a few hours of parking in a public park is not understandable, if I want to visit every
weekend I need to pay $50/month? Very upsetting this favorite place has become like this
1/22/2023 9:27 AM
97 Fees too high, windows not great 1/22/2023 8:55 AM
98 Eliminate it.1/22/2023 5:57 AM
99 Fees that are financially attainable towards working middle class 1/21/2023 3:59 PM
100 availability of free publoc parking clpser to trailhead and not on a busy street next to a guard 1/21/2023 3:59 PM
B-39
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
17 / 23
rail. but i would rather have the free parking on crenshaw than no free parking at all
101 Free parking! Our streets our community 1/21/2023 3:58 PM
102 Free 1/21/2023 2:33 PM
103 Less money 1/21/2023 1:56 PM
104 Get rid of it 1/21/2023 8:35 AM
105 We should be able to pay and reserve upon arrival if there is available space to park 1/18/2023 11:27 PM
106 All this discussion of equitable rights in California and once again the rich have insured access
issues and constant closures to restrict access to one of californias most pristine
environments. You should all be ashamed. Using science to restrict access is the public
1/17/2023 11:06 AM
107 I would like to see parking return to no cost—isn’t open access to recreation why we pay local
and state taxes?
1/13/2023 4:08 PM
108 Make this USER friendly; make it easy to access; stop required advance planning 1/10/2023 5:11 PM
109 Get rid of it. 1. Specific blocks of time are inconvenient. If I’m paying $10+, I’d like to park
when I like. 2. Even when you pay, the spaces can all be full because of people who haven’t
paid and don’t realize they’re taking your paid spot. 3. You’ve turned Park Rangers into meter
maids. Ask them how much they like that. Go ahead. Ask.
1/8/2023 6:28 PM
110 Stop being assholes and keeping nature out of reach of the public.1/8/2023 3:31 PM
111 Immediate payment option to on park 1/7/2023 3:54 PM
112 they now charge $11 and it’s kind of inconvenient to reserve 3days in advance 1/7/2023 10:38 AM
113 I think it is ridiculous to pay for parking to a public hiking trail. Every time I have been NO ONE
has been using the system, just making people park farther away and restricting access with
discriminatory and racist new policies.
1/6/2023 1:57 PM
114 allow parking on the other side of the street like before... where its painted red...it does not
hinder the residents ...there's bushes and very high hedges...they do not even face the
street.... now your instituting this ?? I am a resident and resent this... I have not hiked there
1/5/2023 1:32 PM
115 1. Get rid of it entirely 2. Convert all parking spaces that are currently using the ParkMobile
Parking System to "free, no-reservation needed" spaces.
1/4/2023 1:29 PM
116 Remove the time blocks in the app. There should just be parking spaces. Numbers on the
sidewalk.
1/3/2023 9:51 PM
117 Just get rid of it! It's so obvious it is not working. I've parked in free spots on Crenshaw many
times this year, and I almost never see even ONE car parked in the reserved area.
1/3/2023 5:48 PM
118 Abandon it and let people park for free like in the past. Why hasn't the parking study been
completed? Those spots at Del Cerro Park should be available for free to the public (per
agreement with Dept. of Interior when the city got the land for the preserve) and you have kept
them as resident only for about 3 years now. The City's own attorneys have determined this is
in violation of the original agreement-- and yet, the city does nothing!
1/3/2023 12:36 PM
119 Go back to pre-parkmobile 1/3/2023 11:29 AM
120 Eliminate it.1/3/2023 10:27 AM
121 no reservation. Less expensive 1/2/2023 3:55 PM
122 Make the app easier 1/2/2023 2:05 PM
123 No reservations or cost for what should be free parking.1/2/2023 12:55 PM
124 Be able to verify that the trail is open prior to paying 1/2/2023 12:08 PM
125 Make access to public natural spaces free this includes parking. This feels like an attempt to
exclude people from public space and it is disgusting that such an exclusionary tactic is being
used
1/2/2023 11:41 AM
126 Should be eliminated Not needed now that Covid restrictions over. Few people using it.1/2/2023 11:12 AM
B-40
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
18 / 23
127 make it free we already pay high taxes 1/2/2023 10:46 AM
128 open up the parking without meters and reservations 1/2/2023 8:07 AM
129 It's a waste of $$.1/1/2023 9:33 PM
130 I’ve hiked in this area for 40 years and parking was never a problem until COVID. Now people
are back to work and fewer hikers are there.
1/1/2023 8:57 PM
131 Please remove the parking restrictions on Crenshaw Blvd. Parking on Crenshaw north of Crest
is unsafe due to cars traveling at high speed, making getting out of cars unsafe.
1/1/2023 6:26 PM
132 The area where we have to park has a guard rail blocking access to sidewalk. This forces you
to exit and walk in traffic. Cars in that area drive fast. During the week we pass all parking
spots not being used every time we walk from the church to park entrance. Clearly no one has
been using the parking meters. The City has effectively made it more difficult to enjoy hiking
with your families.
1/1/2023 6:21 PM
133 Don’t charge for parking you cunts 1/1/2023 4:42 PM
134 Affordable rates 1/1/2023 3:33 PM
135 It used to be free 1/1/2023 2:28 PM
136 Make it free!12/30/2022 3:50 PM
137 I would love to understand how it works.12/30/2022 1:23 PM
138 $10 to park on roads our taxes pay for? ! It’s a shame. Greedy money grab or elitist attempt to
keep people out. Can’t decide motivation behind this.
12/29/2022 3:49 PM
139 Instant reservation if no one is using it 12/29/2022 12:38 PM
140 I think you should be able to find a spot and then pay a fee instead of reserving ahead of time.12/28/2022 9:22 PM
141 More inclusive, less classist.12/28/2022 2:56 PM
142 The time blocks are stupid 12/28/2022 2:11 PM
143 Remove it.12/28/2022 2:06 PM
144 No prior reservations required. More than 2 hours maximum 12/28/2022 1:21 PM
145 Make instructions for it available via airdrop to visitors in the near vicinity so you don’t need to
put up signs that bother the neighbors but you still get the info out to visitors. Both androids
and iPhones have the technology and I mean scammers do it so I’m sure it can be done! As
the area gets more attention, the city will have to think about a way of routing people to one of
the other less popular hikes in the area.
12/27/2022 9:51 PM
146 None! It is easy to use, and ensures I always have premium parking available for when I need
it (when I have guests, etc.)
12/27/2022 3:21 PM
147 I'm okay booking a reservation an hour ahead, but most of the time I have to book it hours or a
day ahead to get the specific block of time that's even close to when I am available to go
12/27/2022 1:42 PM
148 I believe it’s discriminatory to have this kind of parking system in place makes it difficult for
anyone not living in the area to visit
12/27/2022 1:14 AM
149 Free pass for rpv residents—perhaps a certain allotment per quarter 12/26/2022 7:21 PM
150 Remove the reservation system because it limits public access and does not efficiently utilize
the parking spaces available.
12/26/2022 6:22 PM
151 No changes. I like being able to make a reservation if I want or parking for free down a block 12/26/2022 4:23 PM
152 Make parking more available and remove the reservation system. All the reservation system
does is limit access to the parks
12/26/2022 1:27 PM
153 I’d like you to make it easier for tax payers to enjoy the public space, not more difficult.
Shameful.
12/26/2022 1:25 PM
154 If parking were cheaper like $4 I’d be more likely to use it and refer others 12/26/2022 1:21 PM
B-41
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
19 / 23
155 Eliminate it entirely. Or, charge all of your residents as well to park at Del Cerro Park. No one
should get free parking
12/26/2022 12:17 PM
156 Remove it. Stop charging for something that used to be free.12/25/2022 3:09 PM
157 The system is good as-is. It’s nice to know there’s a place to park when visiting the Preserve,
and the $10 charge is reasonable. Before the system we used to arrive not knowing if parking
would be available, often circling up and down Crenshaw waiting for a spot to open.
12/25/2022 2:51 PM
158 None 12/25/2022 1:39 PM
159 Better sign to scan 12/25/2022 12:22 PM
160 Get rid of it.12/25/2022 11:48 AM
161 Scrap it 12/25/2022 11:43 AM
162 Cancel and allow parking as before 12/24/2022 4:39 PM
163 make actual parking for people that use these beautiful places and would love to help conserve
them
12/24/2022 12:46 PM
164 Make it free Parking again!!12/24/2022 10:52 AM
165 Eliminate it. It’s ridiculous and ultra exclusive 12/24/2022 9:51 AM
166 More information about its use.12/23/2022 9:15 PM
167 Get rid of it.12/23/2022 8:26 PM
168 Regular pay stations or parking restrictions monitories by meter maids. No parkmobile system.12/23/2022 4:45 PM
169 Get rid of system 12/22/2022 12:12 AM
170 as a resident: get rid of the app and permits 12/21/2022 5:20 PM
171 Get rid of it!12/21/2022 3:22 PM
172 More parking 12/21/2022 2:00 PM
173 Longer free reserve hours for avid hikers 12/21/2022 11:19 AM
174 We have enjoyed and honored the nature preserve for many years. Since inception of the
current parking reservation system, we have yet to observe a single car utilizing the program.
We also walk by the Del Cerro lot and find it effectively empty with maybe 2-3 spaces being
utilized. I urge you to observe the situation that has been created. We face having to park
along Crenshaw, north of Crest which is extremely unsafe. The guard rails are difficult to
maneuver over in order to reach the walkway and we end up having to walk in the lane of traffic
as cars make wide left turns from Crest onto Crenshaw as they rush down the hillside. We
have had a number of close calls. Thank you for giving us a voice with this survey. We hope
this is the start further communication and ultimately a more reasonable solution.
12/20/2022 4:25 PM
175 Get rid of it or lower prices 12/20/2022 3:59 PM
176 Get rid of it.12/20/2022 1:55 PM
177 Allow parking on Crenshaw 12/20/2022 9:05 AM
178 Pricing 12/19/2022 3:27 PM
179 Less expensive, first come first serve like a meter 12/18/2022 9:54 PM
180 Nothing but meters would be fine too 12/18/2022 3:40 PM
181 Leave avid hikers alone, nature is free for all.12/18/2022 8:43 AM
182 Immediate parking, not a reservation in advance.12/17/2022 10:41 AM
183 Free parking 12/17/2022 10:28 AM
184 Make it free 2 hour parking. Use tax money better to not make enjoy nature feel so exclusive 12/16/2022 2:37 PM
185 There should be more free parking- we should encourage exercise for health!12/16/2022 11:47 AM
B-42
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
20 / 23
186 Get rid of it 12/15/2022 2:25 PM
187 None I remember what it was like before the park mobile system, hundreds of people circling
around and around trying to find the closest place to park.
12/15/2022 11:26 AM
188 Make it more accessible to people in lower income brackets and people who can’t use mobile
services
12/12/2022 8:35 PM
189 That there would be designated spots at del cerro park that are parkmobile accessible not just
rpv park restricted.
12/11/2022 5:43 PM
190 Do not charge parking fees 12/10/2022 10:39 PM
191 Make it free 12/10/2022 2:09 PM
192 I would like the system removed or at the very least a permit issued for all PV residents 12/10/2022 12:57 PM
193 Remove the reservation system 12/10/2022 12:24 PM
194 Eliminate the system. Allow people to park on public streets and in public parks for free like
every normal city. I have been hiking this area for thirty years and the city's behavior the last
5-7 years harassing hikers has been reprehensible. Sorry to disappoint you but I am not going
away.
12/9/2022 5:00 PM
195 L.A. County beaches sell a senior weekday parking sticker for $25.00 per year. Purchasing an
annual sticker would be easier for frequent users.
12/9/2022 3:08 PM
196 As I see it you got just what you wanted. You made the system inconvenient and expensive to
use in order to please the elites that live in the area. I rarely see people park there so I’m sure
the neighbors are very happy with the change. If you allowed pay for the time you need at the
time of need at a reasonable price ( currently $3+/ hour…more than other beach city parking)
then I would use it. I used it when it was first rolled out and was free.
12/9/2022 2:32 PM
197 It needs to be an hourly system like any other place. And we should be allowed to pay at the
time of arrival whatever that might be like in any other place.
12/9/2022 9:37 AM
198 Remove the 1 hour rule to reserving, add metered parking just like everyone else.12/8/2022 5:54 PM
199 If it is a must to use, the price needs to be considerably lower. And you should be able to do it
in real time.
12/8/2022 1:43 PM
200 Reduce the fee ($10.35 is very expensive) Vary price (weekdays should be less than
weekends) Allow reservations at the time of parking.
12/8/2022 9:48 AM
201 Make parking free, invest in public welfare 12/6/2022 2:25 PM
202 Let it be free 12/6/2022 8:06 AM
203 Make mid week free. It amazes me when I hike up to Crenshaw how many parking spots are
unused yet there are numerous cars on Crenshaw north of Crest. Apart from the safety issue
of parking on that steep and fast section, what is the point of having paid parking empty most
of the time Monday thru Friday? It seems like the pendulum balancing user needs with local
resident's quality of life has swung a bit too far. There needs to be a better balance!
12/2/2022 12:25 PM
204 Allow same day, drive up and reserve on the spot reservations.12/1/2022 8:46 AM
B-43
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
21 / 23
28.17%71
48.81%123
38.10%96
28.97%73
12.30%31
21.43%54
Q6 If you haven’t used the ParkMobile Reservation System before, please
indicate why:
Answered: 252 Skipped: 20
Total Respondents: 252
#OTHER REASON (PLEASE SPECIFY):DATE
1 expensive 2/28/2023 9:30 AM
2 Too expensive; should be free.2/24/2023 9:19 PM
3 I will never pay a single penny in support of an inequitable paid parking system.2/22/2023 8:14 AM
4 Will not buy into this discriminatory system 2/20/2023 9:35 AM
5 It’s rude to require it 2/19/2023 7:37 AM
6 It is ridiculous! Too expensive and not available when you arrive 2/18/2023 11:04 AM
7 Was confused about how the time blocks worked. I had to ask a park ranger 2/18/2023 9:44 AM
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Was not aware
there was...
Prefer to park
in the gener...
Requirement to
make...
Reservation
time blocks ...
Not Applicable
Other reason
(please...
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Was not aware there was reservation parking available
Prefer to park in the general area without a fee
Requirement to make reservation at least one hour ahead of next reservation time block
Reservation time blocks too long, too short, or at inconvenient times
Not Applicable
Other reason (please specify):
B-44
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
22 / 23
8 No need 2/17/2023 8:15 PM
9 It’s a terrible app. I went to college and I can’t even figure it out.2/15/2023 1:57 PM
10 Pain 2/15/2023 11:09 AM
11 I dontbagree with charging over 10 dollars for people to access public parks... both trump and
terranea have free areas near the parks...free street parking is over a half mile away now...and
uphill!
2/12/2023 10:47 AM
12 Prefer not to pay for parking since there wasn't one before. It's not like your city doesn't have
money.
2/8/2023 9:20 AM
13 Because it shouldn’t cost that much to park on a public street 2/4/2023 1:21 PM
14 Outrageous rice coupled with RPV’s reservation of all parking spaces at the park for their
residents only. F u and them. My taxes pay for the roads too.
2/2/2023 8:38 PM
15 stupid system designed to discriminate 2/2/2023 9:19 AM
16 It sucks 1/29/2023 1:13 PM
17 Unfair !!!1/29/2023 9:19 AM
18 See above. Couldn't make it work. Where IS free parking? I didn't see ANY 1/27/2023 8:38 PM
19 It used to be free, why should I have to pay.1/25/2023 3:18 PM
20 Live nearby. But it really bothers me that we restrict others from using the open nature spaces 1/24/2023 4:15 AM
21 Pricing is ridiculous 1/22/2023 5:57 AM
22 Fees are inaccessible for working families 1/21/2023 3:59 PM
23 inadequate time in time block to walk entire length of reserve 1/21/2023 3:59 PM
24 Was not aware 11$ for parking for a hike where it was once free, wasn't highway robbery 1/21/2023 8:35 AM
25 This is a place the comity has used for years. Taking away abimty to go for a quick walk.1/17/2023 11:06 AM
26 See response above.1/13/2023 4:08 PM
27 I live close to the site; my guests have had LOTS of problems.1/10/2023 5:11 PM
28 RPV assholes 1/8/2023 3:31 PM
29 An hour advance booking is required, very unwelcoming!1/7/2023 3:54 PM
30 This whole system is obviously not working and a waste of money!1/3/2023 12:36 PM
31 Refuse to support a decision that was so ill-conceived.1/3/2023 10:27 AM
32 see 5 1/2/2023 8:07 AM
33 Everything is inconvenient. How do you expect anyone to enjoy this unique preserve in one
hour!
1/1/2023 9:33 PM
34 Not fair to people trying to use the preserve.1/1/2023 6:26 PM
35 I don't understand 1/1/2023 2:28 PM
36 I 1/1/2023 9:13 AM
37 Great idea to maintain open walking spaces but now restrict its use? What is your
organizations function and priority?
12/29/2022 3:49 PM
38 Overly expensive 12/26/2022 1:21 PM
39 You have effectively eliminated public parking in this area. If you’re at all interested, most
times we drive by No One is in your pay space, while the remaining free parking is mostly full.
Finally, please upgrade the Crenshaw parking north of Crest to make it ADA compatible. There
is no sidewalk.
12/26/2022 12:17 PM
40 I am strongly principled against this payment parking system. California parks are for 12/25/2022 3:09 PM
B-45
ParkMobile/Parking Users Survey
23 / 23
everyone, not just those who can afford to pay an exorbitant parking fee because the
neighbors don't want too much noise from the park they chose to live near
41 Expensive 12/25/2022 2:24 PM
42 See above 12/24/2022 4:39 PM
43 The system is unfair and difficult to use by many from other areas. The system defeats the
mission of the conservancy "for the education and enjoyment of all." Also I go every week and
it would be expensive to pay every week. Free parking should be available especially on non
crowded days and especially for seniors. As it is now I have to walk over a half mile just to get
to Del Cerro. I am not happy about the parking spaces taken away from the public for the quiet
enjoyment of a few neighbors.
12/23/2022 8:26 PM
44 Don’t want to use phone 12/23/2022 4:45 PM
45 I need 5-6hour parking 12/22/2022 12:12 AM
46 I had no idea this happened to my hiking area that I’ve been using for 28 years. This totally
sucks!
12/21/2022 3:22 PM
47 System difficult 12/20/2022 9:05 AM
48 Fee and reservation not convenient 12/18/2022 9:54 PM
49 It's a matter of principle / protest against ParkMobile and the local residence trying to exclude
non-locals from using a trails system that was established for ALL to use
12/18/2022 10:19 AM
50 I hate it.12/18/2022 8:43 AM
51 I have a rpv permit 12/10/2022 6:00 PM
52 It is ridiculous that residents of PV are being charged to enjoy our own neighborhood. Please
remove this.
12/10/2022 12:57 PM
53 Also too expensive 12/8/2022 5:54 PM
54 I have an RPV resident sticker so I use the park parking.12/2/2022 12:25 PM
B-46
9/26/2022
1
Proposed Changes to Crenshaw Blvd. Parking Reservation System
To the RPV Recreation, Parks, and Open Space Staff:
Del Cerro HOA appreciates the information Staff has provided to us regarding a recommended
parking-on-demand system on Crenshaw Blvd. and for discussing possible implementation
alternatives with us.
We understand the City’s desire to achieve a balance between visitors’ desires for convenient
parking adjacent to the preserve and neighbors’ need for a safe, quiet and peaceful quality of
life. However, we have concerns with the City’s current proposed plan to implement a parking-
on-demand system on Crenshaw.
Below is a summary of our concerns as well as suggestions for a path forward to help achieve
the City’s objectives.
Impact of Parking-on Demand System as Recommended by Staff
While the City Council and Staff have evaluated numerous approaches to mitigate the traffic
and parking problems Del Cerro area residents have experienced over the last several years, the
current parking reservation system is the only one that has been implemented and effectively
improved traffic safety and restored peace and quiet to the neighborhood. The measures
implemented by the City have eliminated idling cars that impede traffic while waiting for
parking places and cars backing up or making U-turns to fill parking places that become
available. The existing parking system has also dramatically reduced noise from the constant
churn of visitors (loud voices, slamming doors, setting horn-honking car locks, etc.).
In our view, the two most critical system components for mitigating the traffic impediments
caused by cars waiting for parking places are the advance reservations and pre-set 3-hour
reservation time blocks, both of which will be eliminated by the proposed changes to the
system. The advance time required to obtain reservations has previously been reduced to one
hour before arrival time – which seems to be a minimal time that visitors would need to plan
their visit.
The pre-set 3-hour time blocks would be eliminated under a parking-on-demand system as
currently envisioned; parking will essentially be on a first come, first served basis. While visitors
would have to pay for a 3-hour time slot, if they leave before the end of the period, the parking
space will become immediately available for another visitor who will be able to book a 3 -hour
period beginning at the time of payment. In effect, the time blocks in the parking-on-demand
system become just a pricing mechanism, not a way of limiting traffic churning as in the current
B-47
9/26/2022
2
system. We are concerned that the result will be continuous churning throughout the day as
there will no longer be a defined transition period between reserved time blocks.
The proposed parking-on-demand system will effectively turn Crenshaw Blvd. into a traditional
parking lot. When traditional parking lots are near full, it is common practice for people to wait
in their cars near the entrance to the lot or at various places within the lot for someone to
return to a car, ask if the person is leaving and where he/she is parked, and follow the person to
the car to gain access to the parking spot. This practice does not particularly create an unsafe
traffic situation in a parking lot where cars are either parked, idling, or moving at less than 5
mph. However, Crenshaw Blvd. is an arterial road with a 40 -mph speed limit, and we frequently
saw the impact of the idling cars and cars making unsafe maneuvers in traffic lanes before the
current parking reservation system was implemented.
Recommendations
• Survey Potential Users
At this stage, we and Staff are collectively making a lot of assumptions about the limited
parking on Crenshaw without a clear understanding of those causes – i.e., why fewer
visitors than expected are using the current parking spaces. To obtain a clearer
understanding, we recommend that Staff take 2 months to survey the actual and
potential users (i.e., people who are successfully making reservations, those who are
arriving without reservations and attempting to obtain a space, and those who choose
to park in the free zones) and return in January with survey results and
recommendations based on the survey data for further action.
The current reservation system is composed of multiple parameters that are set by
ParkMobile in consultation with Staff to achieve desired goals. Perhaps a better
understanding of visitors’ concerns would enable us to modify or loosen one or more
parameters within the existing system to improve usage without abandoning the
current parking reservation system to create a totally new parking scheme that may or
may not achieve the City’s desired outcome. As you are aware, over the last few weeks,
we’ve discussed numerous ideas to help prevent a recurrence of previous problems.
However, each one has been deemed infeasible in the proposed parking-on-demand
approach. With additional time and knowledge of the user desires as well as system
parameters, we may be able to find a solution that addresses the City’s desire to achieve
a better balance of user desires and neighborhood needs.
B-48
9/26/2022
3
• Install Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trailhead Gates Before Changing the Parking
System
If Council decides to go ahead with elimination of advance reservations without further
review, we feel it is imperative that the Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trail gates are
installed and operational before changes to the parking system are implemented. As
you may recall, the need for the gates was established long before traffic and parking
conditions became completely untenable in the early days of the pandemic. They are
intended to keep visitors from roaming the preserve at night after the preserve is closed
and entering before the preserve opening time of 7 am, causing concerns about the
safety of residents and loss of peace and quiet during nighttime and early-morning
hours.
Burma Rd. gate was approved in July 2018, installed in November 2020, and then
severely damaged to the point of inoperability in the summer of 2021 after 7-8 months
of operation. A new gate and protective bollards are now scheduled for installation at
the end of 2022. The Rattlesnake Trail gate was approved in January 2019 and a
contract to build the gate is scheduled for review by Council next month and installation
in the summer of 2023.
While the volume of visitors has returned to pre-pandemic levels, the need for the gates
hasn’t diminished.
• Hire Necessary Staff for Effective Enforcement
The City also needs to hire and maintain adequate staffing levels for the education and
enforcement of the parking rules before implementing changes to the parking system.
Despite continued efforts to hire appropriate personnel, Staff has struggled to maintain
the staff level that will be needed to manage the parking conditions if parking is
significantly increased. The proposed parking system changes that are intended to
increase usage will require substantial education outreach and full-time enforcement
coverage during an extended transition period and likely continuing indefinitely. Our
discussions with people who arrive in the parking zone indicate that most are first-time
visitors who are unaware of the parking system – even though the system has been in
place for over a year. Given the large population of LA County (and beyond), we believe
this is a steady-state condition that is likely to continue.
B-49
9/26/2022
4
• Start with a Pilot Program
Once viable parking system options that balance the desires of visitors and the needs of
residents are developed and a path forward is approved, we recommend that the City
implement a pilot program to determine impacts on a limited scale and try mitigation
measures, if necessary, before full implementation, with appropriate success criteria
established and results measured against those criteria - for example, implementation
on weekdays but not on weekends, or on certain times of the day.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We look forward to continued discussions
with Staff as we move through this process.
Respectfully submitted,
The Del Cerro HOA Board:
Kathy Edgerton
Megan and Bob Moore
Miriam and Pete Varend
Dion Hatch
Mark Kernen
Gregory MacDonald
Irene and Brandon Lee
B-50